4 ms·

If terrorism is unsuccessful explain Mao and Lenin. Does anyone seriously think that Trotsky followed Lenin because he just "wanted the chicks man" and didn't r

by ucee054 14y ago

If terrorism is unsuccessful explain Mao and Lenin. Does anyone seriously think that Trotsky followed Lenin because he just "wanted the chicks man" and didn't really want revolution? Oh I see what the author's done, he's defined away the problem: the successful aren't terrorists, they're guerrillas. So he's right by definition. Cheap trick, pathetic.

slurgfest 14y ago
Why do you only mention Communists? Why not also probe into the motivations of Mussolini, Hitler, Quisling, Pinochet, Franco? That is assuming that you haven't defined away the problem: the right-wing aren't terrorists, they're freedom fighters.
- stfu 14y ago
  But what about the Nicaraguan Contras, the Tibet Autonomous region, or the Chechnyan rebels. How could he have missed these? ucee054 was making an example of how the argument of the original post is having substantial flaws. Not everything remotely related to politics is intended as some ideological political statement.
  - gwern 14y ago
    > But what about the Nicaraguan Contras, the Tibet Autonomous region, or the Chechnyan rebels. How could he have missed these? What about them? Tibet is still ruled by China, and Chechnya is, last I checked, still ruled by Russia. The only of the three even remotely successful is the Contras, and the president elected after their dissolution doesn't seem to have owed much to them or do much that they would have wanted.
- ucee054 14y ago
  The reason for mentioning Russia and China is that they were the most spectacular successes that I could think of, gaining for Lenin and Mao control of huge, superpower territories. I don't believe Franco's success was anywhere near this scale. The reason for not mentioning Hitler is that Nazi Germany ended as a smoking crater, one reason it wouldn't be as brain dead easy to argue for Hitler's "success". I wish I could give right wing examples, care to help me out with some? Does George Washington count?
gwern 14y ago
'Chicks' are one way to get meaning in one's life. Student radicals certainly seemed to get the 'chicks'. As for defining away: I did no such thing. The data speaks for itself; guerillas use different tactics and strategies than terrorists, and that's why they are not conflated by most people. Also, Mao and Lenin don't come up in the datasets as far as I know, and if they did - well, it's not hugely clear that guerillas are much more successful! There's a lot of luck in their careers. Lenin could have been shot like many others instead of exiled by the Czarists; Mao could have died at any point in the Long March like many others; etc. (How strange that suggesting terrorists have motives other than terror and are not omnipotently effective brings people out of the woodwork - the false flag criticisms are the most obviously bizarre, but the guerrilla/terrorist definition isn't much better.)
- ucee054 14y ago
  What difference in tactics? The Khomeinists used exactly the same tactics as the Bolsheviks did, right down to being organized as soviets or committees. And Al Qaeda use exactly the same tactics as the CIA taught them, in fact they train using US Marines tactics manuals translated into arabic. Maybe instead of shooting off ad hominems about "coming out of the woodwork" you might try actually knowing what you're talking about. You can start with "Tactics of the Crescent Moon" and "Imperial Hubris" as references.

by ucee054 14y ago

slurgfest 14y ago

Why do you only mention Communists? Why not also probe into the motivations of Mussolini, Hitler, Quisling, Pinochet, Franco? That is assuming that you haven't defined away the problem: the right-wing aren't terrorists, they're freedom fighters.

stfu 14y ago
But what about the Nicaraguan Contras, the Tibet Autonomous region, or the Chechnyan rebels. How could he have missed these? ucee054 was making an example of how the argument of the original post is having substantial flaws. Not everything remotely related to politics is intended as some ideological political statement.
- gwern 14y ago
  > But what about the Nicaraguan Contras, the Tibet Autonomous region, or the Chechnyan rebels. How could he have missed these? What about them? Tibet is still ruled by China, and Chechnya is, last I checked, still ruled by Russia. The only of the three even remotely successful is the Contras, and the president elected after their dissolution doesn't seem to have owed much to them or do much that they would have wanted.
ucee054 14y ago
The reason for mentioning Russia and China is that they were the most spectacular successes that I could think of, gaining for Lenin and Mao control of huge, superpower territories. I don't believe Franco's success was anywhere near this scale. The reason for not mentioning Hitler is that Nazi Germany ended as a smoking crater, one reason it wouldn't be as brain dead easy to argue for Hitler's "success". I wish I could give right wing examples, care to help me out with some? Does George Washington count?

gwern 14y ago

'Chicks' are one way to get meaning in one's life. Student radicals certainly seemed to get the 'chicks'. As for defining away: I did no such thing. The data speaks for itself; guerillas use different tactics and strategies than terrorists, and that's why they are not conflated by most people. Also, Mao and Lenin don't come up in the datasets as far as I know, and if they did - well, it's not hugely clear that guerillas are much more successful! There's a lot of luck in their careers. Lenin could have been shot like many others instead of exiled by the Czarists; Mao could have died at any point in the Long March like many others; etc. (How strange that suggesting terrorists have motives other than terror and are not omnipotently effective brings people out of the woodwork - the false flag criticisms are the most obviously bizarre, but the guerrilla/terrorist definition isn't much better.)

ucee054 14y ago
What difference in tactics? The Khomeinists used exactly the same tactics as the Bolsheviks did, right down to being organized as soviets or committees. And Al Qaeda use exactly the same tactics as the CIA taught them, in fact they train using US Marines tactics manuals translated into arabic. Maybe instead of shooting off ad hominems about "coming out of the woodwork" you might try actually knowing what you're talking about. You can start with "Tactics of the Crescent Moon" and "Imperial Hubris" as references.